{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105700",
    "time_of_filling": "2023-08-14 09:48:06",
    "domain_names": [
        "leparisen.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "LE PARISIEN LIBERE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Kacper Golonka"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>The Complainant, LE PARISIEN LIBERE, SAS, is a French daily newspaper covering both international and national news, and local news of Paris and its suburbs. The paper was established as &ldquo;Le Parisien lib&eacute;r&eacute;&rdquo; by &Eacute;milien Amaury in 1944, and was published for the first time on 22 August 1944.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name &lt;leparisen.com&gt; was registered on 23 July 2023 and is held by the Respondent.<\/p>\n<p>The domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) is currently not used and has no content available to public (i.e. the disputed domain name is not currently associated with any active website).<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p><strong>COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>CONFUSING SIMILARITY<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The disputed domain name is identical to its Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks and to its domain names.<\/li>\n<li>The obvious misspelling of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks (i.e. the omission of the letter &ldquo;I&rdquo;) is intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks and the disputed domain name.<\/li>\n<li>The disputed domain name represents a clear case of so called &ldquo;typosquatting&rdquo; which means that the disputed domain name is based on an obvious misspelling of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks.<\/li>\n<li>Thus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/li>\n<li>Furthermore, the domain name website has been during its existence inactive, which implies that there was no Respondent&rsquo;s intention to use the domain name for legitimate purposes.<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Seniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademarks are well known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the domain name due to well-known character thereof, which should have been checked by the Respondent by performing a simple internet search.<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>The disputed domain name (at the time of filing of the complaint) did not resolve to any active website. In the light of the foregoing, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and used with the sole purpose of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant or its competitiors.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>It is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above-described non-use of the disputed domain name and Respondent&rsquo;s engagement in typosquatting, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that registering a domain name (i) incorporating trademarks that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character and at the same time (ii) abusing typosquatting, constitute prima facie registration in bad faith, despite a fact that such domain names are not genuinely used.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
    "bad_faith": "<p>The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<p>The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-09-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademarks containing a word element \"LE PARISIEN&rdquo;:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>LE PARISIEN (word), French national trademark, priority date 14 May 1998, trademark no. 98732442, registered for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 35, 36, 39, 41, and 42; and<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>&nbsp;LE PARISIEN (device), French national trademark, priority date 14 May 1998, trademark no. 98732441, registered for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 35, 36, 39, 41, and 42.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>(collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant has also registered several domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term &ldquo;LEPARISIEN&rdquo;.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "leparisen.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}